Best Baltic NATO base - Russian attack

a reply to: devilmoon

Is that why when I tried to find something about this yesterday there was, literally, one search hit? And it was the article used for the OP.

That's quite the propaganda piece when one whole article is written about it.

originally posted by: devilmoon
a reply to: MrSpad

the basic story seems to be two people climbed a fence and raised a flag.

it's basically western propogandaists creating a no sense story to then give themselves an excuse to talk about something other than the us senators who are trying to stop the funding for the neo nazi azov brigade being funded with us tax dollars.

it's all they have left now russia nationalised nearly all of the industry in ukraine and crimea and the full scale tweet brigade is being completely ignored.

lots of money and jobs and huge growth available to take advantage of in the bric region. just google bric vs g7 for the real story behind this and the other nonsenses topics.

the only halarious thing is these guys think anyone falls for it these days. rather than just scratching their head and changing channel.

Um no. This was posted by a pro Russian guy. Nobody in the West even notice. Maybe try reading the OP again. And you can forget going the BRICS route, since it was formed it has failed to produce a single trade deal and two members economies have crashed, two others have slowed and only India has improved because of a series of trade deals with the West. I hate to tell you but, this is as good as a feel good story about Russia gets now.

originally posted by: pikestaff
Looking at a map, the Baltic is hundreds of Kliks from Hungary, I just don't see how Hungary can defend the Baltic, what with Germany being in the way, and Poland.

Don't let the facts get in the way of a point someone is trying to make. Is there a point in the OP? Having read it a second time I have decided there isn't.

a reply to: MrSpad

its quite terrible black propoganda.
I've seen very few pro russians post on here much. a few westerners with eastern contacts who actually understand the situation a bit more.

but nothing touching on the fact that the bric countries and g7 are already engaged in full scale economic hot proxy and cyber warfare. which is such old news now is even making the mainstream.

but no.
what we need to talk about is . how much the west hates putins phenomenal successes.
who is worst in the latest installment of the hot proxy wars

and now

two guys climbing a fence and raising a flag.

pathetic.

edit to add.
fifth time I've heard the story now (conversations) that china is claiming on state tv they plan to nuke the us.
where do I go to get details and the truth on things like that.
because it clearly isn't here.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
Yes yes, Russia good west bad, NATO bad, America really bad.

Got it.

I would actually say what the US has done since the fall of the USSR has been wrong. Surrounding Russia with NATO and US bases, attempting to put up missile shields etc. It's an act of aggression.

What do you think the USA would do if Russia put bases all around the USA and attempted to put missile shields up?

The goal is to nullify Russia's first strike and retaliatory nuclear capabilities. They don't necessarily want to do this in order to avoid nuclear war- they want to marganilize Russia's geopolitical/economic influence.To absolutely subjugate Russia and prevent them from ever challenging western hegemony in the same way the USSR once did.

The US has been an aggressor since the end of WW2. Russia wasnt as bad after the deStalinization period.

Lets not fool ourselves though. The US represents western corporate interests across the globe. Our government is operating not with the people's interests in mind but with the profits of megalithic banks and corporations in mind.

We're suppose to wrap the flag around that and cheer it on? Russia is also working to expand it's profit base. Not necessarily a noble venture either. Both nations leaders are corrupt.

originally posted by: JeanPaul

originally posted by: Shamrock6
Yes yes, Russia good west bad, NATO bad, America really bad.

Got it.

I would actually say what the US has done since the fall of the USSR has been wrong. Surrounding Russia with NATO and US bases, attempting to put up missile shields etc. It's an act of aggression.

What do you think the USA would do if Russia put bases all around the USA and attempted to put missile shields up?

The goal is to nullify Russia's first strike and retaliatory nuclear capabilities. They don't necessarily want to do this in order to avoid nuclear war- they want to marganilize Russia's geopolitical/economic influence.To absolutely subjugate Russia and prevent them from ever challenging western hegemony in the same way the USSR once did.

The US has been an aggressor since the end of WW2. Russia wasnt as bad after the deStalinization period.

Lets not fool ourselves though. The US represents western corporate interests across the globe. Our government is operating not with the people's interests in mind but with the profits of megalithic banks and corporations in mind.

We're suppose to wrap the flag around that and cheer it on? Russia is also working to expand it's profit base. Not necessarily a noble venture either. Both nations leaders are corrupt.

Russia was a part of NATO's expansion and had no problem with it. In fact in brought stability to those states something that the non NATO FSR states have not found. Russia joined NATO's PFP, Russia formed a special Russia NATO council, Russia was invited to join but, declined because they did not like the idea of nations like Iceland and Luxembourg having and equal vote with a great power like Russia, despite the fact that the US is ok with it. Russia joined NATO military exercises as well. All while NATO expansion was going on. Putin himself in 2000 suggested Russia could join NATO down the road. Russia was even let into the G-7, despite is economy not being up to par, as sign of good will. And while Russia was content with NATO expansion, NATO looked the other way as the Russian military got involved in Azerbaijan, Armenia, Moldova, and Georgia twice. Until Putin over played his hand in Ukraine. Even that could have been settled but, Putin's position at home required and outside enemy to blame Russia's many problems on. So this entire the US surrounding Russia nonsense needs to stop. Not only were no NATO or US bases or forces ever placed in the those new members but, cut their own military's massively. And while all this happened Russia was hand in hand with NATO. Then suddenly 20 years later they have a problem with it.

a reply to: Shamrock6

We need more SKULL INSIGNIAS on our uniforms too...and SHINNY tall boots,gotta have the shinny tall jackboots,IT'S VITAL!

a reply to: JeanPaul

I would actually say what the US has done since the fall of the USSR has been wrong. Surrounding Russia with NATO and US bases, attempting to put up missile shields etc. It's an act of aggression.

When did having defensive missiles become an act of aggression?

In fact it is used as a deterrent to an act of aggression against whatever country is doing the shooting.

And NATO doesn't just move into a country, and has denied countries bordering Russia into NATO...so why would they do that if they were trying to surround Russia with NATO?

The US has been an aggressor since the end of WW2. Russia wasnt as bad after the deStalinization period.

Then Putin came along and well we can see what happened after that.

Russia is also working to expand it's profit base.

Shouldn't that be Putin is working to expand his profit base?

a reply to: MrSpad

Then suddenly 20 years later they have a problem with it.

Mind boggling isn't it?

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: JeanPaul

I would actually say what the US has done since the fall of the USSR has been wrong. Surrounding Russia with NATO and US bases, attempting to put up missile shields etc. It's an act of aggression.

When did having defensive missiles become an act of aggression?

Missile shields surrounding Russia would nullify their land based nuclear arsenal in so giving the US first strike capabilities. The naval/sea based missile shields would nullify Russia's submarine based missiles. The US lies and says the missile shields are to protect Europe from "rouge states". Simply taking the time to read various foreign policy advisers publications/books exposes the USA's plan to keep Russia contained.

Anyhow, if Russia/China attempted to place missile shields all around the USA what do you think the US would do?

It's a geopolitical/economic strategy to marginalize Russia's geopolitical/economic influence. The US wouldn't let Russia do the same thing. Just think of the reaction if Russia tried to put missile shields all along the Canadian/Mexican borders! The US would go into a rage. It would be much like the Cuban missile crisis.

The US has a clear strategy to contain Russia in the post USSR world. Ukraine is just one part of this strategy.

China is also seen as a threat. Both economically and geopolitically. Russia, China and Iran are set to challenge US hegemony. A new Cold War is on the horizon. It's already here in fact.

China has created a new development bank and is seeking to make their currency a reserve currency. This would begin to challenge the US dollar and US led institutions such as the World Bank/IMF.

China is also planning a revolutionary development project- the "New Silk Road" would place China in an economic advantage on the Eurasian continent and into Africa (if they succeed). The US is pushing trade "reform" such as the TPP in reaction. A sort of preemptive move in order to place western corporations in the drivers seat in many Asian and Europian countries. China is also expanding it's military. Mostly NAVY to maintain nuclear capabilities.

All of this is very troubling. This sort of nationalistic competition is what led to WW1. I don't think all out world war is on the horizon, more so a new Cold War with proxy wars being fought between the west and Russia/China/Iran. As the US makes its "pivot to Asia".

Saudi Arabia seems to have its own plans for a more unified Arab/Sunni Middle East. There's all sorts of subsurface conflict going on. The so called "end of history" as declared after the fall of the USSR hasn't manifested.

a reply to: JeanPaul

The missiles they're putting in place aren't capable of stopping anything but a TRBM/IRBM. They can't stop a nuclear missile, even if they were right on the Russian border.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: JeanPaul

The missiles they're putting in place aren't capable of stopping anything but a TRBM/IRBM. They can't stop a nuclear missile, even if they were right on the Russian border.

They can be easily retrofitted for offensive capabilities and NATO plans to install long range anti ballistic systems in 2018. Starting in Poland.

a reply to: JeanPaul

Yes, to stop IRBM class weapons. The systems they're installing are based on the SM-3 missile. The initial defenses are based on the Block IIA missile. In the 2020 time frame they're calling for an upgrade to the IIB standard. The SM-3 was designed for the Aegis BMD system which can't intercept an ICBM. There are later variants that may be able to but everything I've seen on the SM-3 is that even the IIB will be too slow to do it.

originally posted by: JeanPaul
Missile shields surrounding Russia would nullify their land based nuclear arsenal

Actually, that's a worthy aim. I would be quite happy for Russia to be neutered.

Russia's nationalistic aggression and attitude, fading importance, and their vast nuclear arsenal is a cause for worry.

The Russians recently stated our missile shield would not work against Russian missiles.

So which is it?

a reply to: JeanPaul

source?

a reply to: Xcathdra

The long range missiles will be when the land based SM-3s go from Block IIA to Block IIB. The IIB upgrade will make them more effective against the IRBM threat.

a reply to: JeanPaul

Missile shields surrounding Russia would nullify their land based nuclear arsenal in so giving the US first strike capabilities. The naval/sea based missile shields would nullify Russia's submarine based missiles. The US lies and says the missile shields are to protect Europe from "rouge states".

If what you are saying is even half as true that the US missile shield will be able to take out even short range Russian missiles, then the moment this shield goes up, Russia should attack and destroy the shield infrastructure right away.

This is very similar to Cuban missile crisis and Kremlin would be foolish to play cool and nice here.

Does not attacking the US or NATO mean a WW3? Yes it does, but then certain decisions are taken with the logic of "Come what may"..............that means even WW3 and destruction of humanity from the earth.

a reply to: victor7

That's about all it will be able to take out is short and medium range missiles. It won't be able to touch their ICBM force. The US has yet to come up with a reliable ICBM counter that works even a fraction of the time.